If you want private correspondence to remain private then that should not undermine the arguments you do present in the forum. Especially since you may have updated your views since a year ago. Furthermore, if your private position is unofficial and contains perhaps colourful language then I also accept that you have to be careful about what you put your name to in publication.
If you have presented your current knowledge base and thoughts concerning C14 Dating on this Message Board then you can't really be expected to do any more than that either.
As for responding to your C14 views - sorry but I can't because I honestly don't know enough about the subject to make detailed criticisms - at least nothing that I would like to put my name to. In due course I will be doing research in the area of radioactive dating with a view to scrutinizing the methods. My provisional views on C14 dating remain that, from what I know, it is sound enough though by no means perfect - but what is anyway. Though, I favour the taking of more samples by different scientists that can be tested in different labs. Namely, I would like more reproducibility of results.
|Debate||406||Garrett Fagan||29-Nov-00 22:05|
|RE: Debate||292||Graham Hancock||30-Nov-00 01:37|
|RE: Debate||184||Geoff Stocks||30-Nov-00 01:56|
|RE: Debate||188||jameske||30-Nov-00 03:39|
|RE: Debate||175||Garrett Fagan||30-Nov-00 04:04|
|RE: Debate||207||Graham Hancock||30-Nov-00 11:32|
|RE: Debate||177||Dr E||30-Nov-00 11:52|
|WEAR SPECTACLES||175||Bryan||30-Nov-00 12:56|
|RE: WEAR SPECTACLES||168||Sharif||30-Nov-00 13:16|
|RE: WEAR SPECTACLES||183||Dr E||30-Nov-00 13:59|
|RE: WEAR SPECTACLES||236||Bryan||30-Nov-00 15:18|
|RE: WEAR SPECTACLES||158||Dr E||30-Nov-00 18:04|
|RE: Debate||216||Mark||30-Nov-00 09:57|
|RE: Debate||150||Geoff Stocks||30-Nov-00 19:54|
|RE: Debate||177||jameske||30-Nov-00 01:53|